Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/590 BBY

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

590 BBY

  • Nominated by: Darth Morrt 16:57, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My first try with a year.

(5 ACs/0 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 01:29, January 15, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote — Fiolli; 02:57, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:33, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
  5. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 07:01, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Jujiggum
  • Who is the "they" to whom you refer in the lead quote? Please specify this in the quote's attribution, because otherwise it's confusing.
    • Baas's group of Jedi. Darth Morrt 22:19, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you state in the intro some more about the events that actually happened in this specific year?
  • "The Galactic Republic narrowly escaped extinction" This wording doesn't really work here; extinction usually refers to a species or a way of life—and it is always permanent. That doesn't really fit with a government, which could always be restored.
  • In the proem: did Baas' actions also take place in 1,000 BBY? If not, could you indicate that it was later?
  • We need some context for the "Republic Classic era" in the "The galaxy in 590 BBY" section.
    • Done. Darth Morrt 04:43, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • That doesn't really help: you'd already given it a timeframe by saying it was 400 years in the making. What I'm asking is: what exactly was the Republic Classic era? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:29, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
        • Is this better? Or should I search for more detail? Darth Morrt 10:24, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
          • What about mentioning that it was the time following the Ruusan Reformations? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:20, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Contextify the Tedryn Holocron, please.
  • For the "The galaxy in 590 BBY" section: you could use Baas' master's prophecy as the section's quote, and specify in the attribution that Baas placed the prophecy in the holocron in/around this year.
  • Which leads me to a quick question: it sounds like the source gives an approximate date for Baas putting the prophecy in the Tedryn Holocron in 590 BBY. If so, then you need to specify in the "The galaxy in 590 BBY" section and in the events section of the infobox that it was around this year (not necessarily in this year) that Baas added the prophecy.
    • Palp said in the comic (which is set in 10 ABY), that Baas was part of the group of Jedi "six hundred years ago". The endnotes in the same comic stated that "as the Emperor himself explains, Jedi teachings were recorded in its internals many centuries ago." This gives the year 590 BBY. I think it is approximate. None of the sources mentiones the date directly. Darth Morrt 04:43, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • "The Republic Classic era continued for nearly 600 more years" Why did you link 17,000 BBY to "600 more years?"
    • When I began working on the article, I copyed the shortest GA year, changed what can be applyed for this year and cut the rest. I missed this because of the piped link. Fixed. Darth Morrt 04:43, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you state how the prophecy was fulfilled? Because otherwise, there seems to be no reason to mention the Empire at all in the Impact section.
    • Done. Darth Morrt 04:43, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
      • The point of this objection was to tie it in to the Empire. Without mentioning that the prophecy helped defeat the Emperor (yes, you say Palpatine, but you don't state his relation to the Empire at all), I see no reason to mention the Empire at all in the Impact section. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:29, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Dark Side Lord is an unusual title for Palpatine, but I think it is a good reference to the prophecy. Darth Morrt 10:24, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Due to the ongoing year-article cleanup, there are a lot of redlinks in that template, and none are allowed in templates per rule 8.
    • Sorry to butt in, but I personally don't get this. How do red links in templates make the individual article less worthy? That's a template problem, not an article problem IMO. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 17:13, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • See the above rule that I cited in the objection. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:25, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • Feel free to start a CT if you feel this rule should be changed, Fred. 1358 (Talk) 17:28, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's nice to see some more of these less-common article topics. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:39, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a couple more things: "The Ruusan Reformation provided never-before-seen power to the Galactic Senate." How is this important for the "The galaxy in 590 BBY" section? The Reformation had taken place centuries earlier; the Senate had already had that "never-before-seen power" for 400 years by the time of this year.
  • I'm not entirely convinced that so much detail about the Clone Wars and the formation of the Corporate Sector are needed in the "Impact" section, some of it seems extraneous. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 05:30, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • The formation of the Corporate Sector is an of the consequences of "The Republic continued its expansion into the Deep Core and uncharted Wild Space areas of what later became part of the Outer Rim Territories." The Clone Wars info is cut. Darth Morrt 12:25, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • So sorry I didn't respond before now; I was sans computer for over a week, and completely forgot about these objections until now. If I ever take that long to get to an objection that's been addressed, don't hesitate to let me know. I'll give the article one more quick lookover asap. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the review. Darth Morrt 18:03, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Prepare to be savaged...
  • There are a few places in the notes where you say you used simple math to come to some conclusion or another, yet you don't show that math. I think it's important to show our work here (in prose, not equations, of course!) so others can check to make sure things are correct. ~ SavageBob 16:54, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
    • Just a quick note here: Morrt was just following other precedent in this; check out the other year GAs that we have. My two cents on the matter is that as long as you state the source of the dates upon which your equations are based, I'm not sure that writing out in prose the math from which you derived the dates is fully warranted. And if we come to decide that it is warranted, I don't think that writing out the problems in prose form would be better than just showing the simple math equations. Perhaps an SH thread would be best here, to see what the community in general thinks on the matter? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:21, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I copied what I've found on a GA year article. I've yust changed and expanded it to be clearer. Darth Morrt 04:18, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry, just to clarify: I wasn't proposing math equations, but rather something like, "According to Source X, the Battle of Blah occurred in 3 BBY. According to Source Y, BBY dates are 500 years higher than XYZ dates." That kind of thing. If precedent is against this, I'll withdraw the objection, but it certainly seems like an oversight of all of these articles, then. ~ SavageBob 04:46, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • We should ideally be sourcing Fact File issues according to the English publication. Please make an effort to find out the English issue numbers for citation reference number 5. There are a few users on the wiki who may have access to this information.
  • Should an em-dash be used for the hyphen between "falls" and "into" here? "falls-into dark side's eye" Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:49, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • You added an en-dash, but are you sure it shouldn't be an em-dash? Seems like it to me, at least. You have the source, though, so whatever you think is best. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:25, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
      • There are two canon versions of the prophecy. In the Dark Empire comic, which is the original source, there are two hyphens after "falls", like "--". This version of the prophecy is said by Bodo Baas' hologram through the Tedryn Holocron. The prophecy is reprinted in the JvS: Essential Guide to the Force, but in this version, there is nothing between "falls" and "into". Which source is the 'stronger' here, the original or the most recent one? IMO, the original should be kept, since the newer one is Tionne's work with Tionne's error (JvS is an in-Universe book written by Tionne Solusar). Em-dash or "-- [sic]" should be used? Darth Morrt 05:23, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree with you, and I think you should go with the "--" per the original source. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:33, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 07:01, January 16, 2011 (UTC)


  • I don't know how much era-related info is needed to this year. I tryed to follow the example of other GA years. Darth Morrt 12:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)